A Michigan state legislator, whose name I don't remember, has made some proposals about the teaching of history in state K-12 schools. I heard him briefly on the radio this AM where he was explaining/defending his proposals which were in this AM's newspaper. I haven't read the article and only heard his proposal to remove "democracy" as a descriptor of the US form of government.
According to him, some committee of school teachers couldn't defend "democracy" as a way to describe our government; they couldn't give one example. The legislator wants the term "democracy," for instance, as in "core democratic values" (with which I have some problems, but those are for another day), to be replaced by "republic." He claims the US is not a democracy, but a "Constitutionally-mandated republic." This is an old canard which I have addressed in the past, but apparently it needs to be explained again.
Yes, we are a "Constitutionally-mandated republic." I can't imagine anyone arguing otherwise. But I also can't imagine anyone but the ignorant arguing we are not a democracy as well. It's not as if describing our government one way precludes another description. For instance, an apple is red (or green or golden or......), but it can also be described as round or roundish, tart or sweet, etc. An apple can be all of these. So can our system of government.
The term "republic" stems from two Latin words, res publica, to describe the form of government the Romans used from about 509 BC to 27 BC, give or take a few years. It means "thing of the people." Generally, today, a republic is a form of government where authority rests with the people who choose representatives to govern them. OK, that fits for the US. (Hmmm...... But what about the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the German Democratic Republic, etc.? They certainly weren't "things of the people." And although there may have been elections in those nations, they certainly weren't legitimate. But that's for another time.) Democracy comes from two Greek words, demos and kratia, meaning the people rule or have power. And that, too fits for the US. Ultimate authority for government in our system rests with the people. Note the very first three words to the Constitution, that document those who insist we are not a democracy point to as a "Constitutionally-mandated republic." The Preamble begins, "We the People......" It doesn't, but I suppose could have, been written, "The government" or "The President" or "Congress" or, especially in light of the fear many Founders had of a central government, "We the States......" No, it reads, "We the People......"
Of course we don't have a direct democracy. That would have been impossible then and even more so now. There have been very few direct democracies in history--and, in fact, very few democracies compared to other types of government systems. We have a representative democracy or indirect democracy, perhaps best described as a republican democracy. The people elect representatives to do their government work for them.
Note our two political parties: Democrats and Republicans. The Democrats were originally the Jeffersonian Republicans, later rechristened the Democratic Republicans, and finally, when the National Republicans briefly emerged as a second party, just the Democrats. I suppose they could have called themselves the Republicans, sticking with their origins of the Jeffersonian/Democratic Republicans. (This was in the 1820s. The Republican Party was not founded until 1854.) So......
Make of this as you will. I'm not surprised a politician, any politician doesn't know this. But I'm also not surprised the teachers on this committee, according to the politician, couldn't defend "democracy." I suppose if politicians are critical of the quality of education, if this is an example, they need look no farther than the quality of their own educations.
Wednesday, June 20, 2018
Wednesday, June 13, 2018
Where Does It End?
Apparently a kid who was born a boy and now claims to be transgender was allowed to compete in the Connecticut state high school track meet--as a girl. Is it a surprise he won his events, by sizable margins?
The kid admits he was born as a boy, but she identifies as a girl. In rare circumstances only, can elite women compete with men. Compare marathon times. What person would put a woman at offensive tackle vs some NFL defensive lineman? In an interview I heard, one guy said that if the UConn women's basketball team was put on the court with the UConn men's team, "the men might lose." Maybe so, but I doubt it, really doubt it.
So, what happens when guys not good enough to make the NBA or the PGA Tour declare they "identify as women" and proceed to the WNBA and LPGA? Is that far behind? Will those doo-gooders (and I do mean doo) support the lost opportunities (think money!) for women?
I'm not taking an anti-transgender position. In fact, I just finished a book about transgenders. I do think, though, that someone with a male body, regardless of how he/she identifies, has a distinct advantage over most athletes with female bodies. Consider strength, speed, etc.
I wonder about the whole thing. How did the winner (and the transgender who finished second) really feel about the victory? He/She appeared excited, but, deep down? How did the girls (and their parents and coaches) feel about this, losing to someone with male physical abilities? What about the boys'/girls' parents? For that matter, how does this differ from the doping, esp the Soviet and Eastern European, scandals of the Olympics, the taking of male hormones by women athletes? The state high school officials claim their hands were tied, that they had to permit the competition due to state law. If, say, transgenders can use either rest room, they can compete in either meet, boys or girls.
Perhaps some boys, honestly or otherwise, should claim to be transgender and insist on competing in girls' meets/events.
If a person biologically a male, claims to be/identifies as a female, can he/she get, say, a college scholarship for the women's basketball team? Would a coach even consider it?
I don't know anything of the NoKo deal. But I find it very entertaining that those who criticized Obama over Iran are now lauding Trump over North Korea. And, vice versa, those supporters of Obama's deal are critical of Trump. That was probably predictable.
Some Hollywood-type (I, as usual, never heard of the guy.) made some comments about the Supremes' decision in the Colorado baker case. The baker, citing his religious beliefs, refused to bake a cake for a gay wedding--or something like that. The baker was sued and lost in the state courts, but the Supremes overturned the state ruling. (I hope I have that right. It's so hard to keep things straight nowadays!) This Hollywood-type, who is smarter than you and I, disagreed and made some public comments that the baker should have to bake the cake when a gay wedding is held. OK, I don't have a problem with this, if...... If this Hollywood-type agrees to make a commercial touting the bakery and the baker's religious beliefs. Oh, the Hollywood-type doesn't agree with the baker, but thinks the baker should have to go against his beliefs. So, then turn-around is fair play. If the baker can be forced to go against his beliefs by others, so should the Hollywood-type in making the ad extolling the baker's religious beliefs. Maybe not......
I listened intently the other day. The person was saying something I didn't know; I realized I could learn from her. So, I tried to drink in as much as I could. So, then, why do so many people refuse to recognize others might, just might, know more than they do? Why are they so reluctant, if not downright stubborn, when it comes to listening, to at least considering others' suggestions? Just because somebody played little league and watches games on the boob tube does not at all mean that person really knows baseball. I think far too many don't realize that. And it goes beyond baseball and other sports. I am willing to concede, too, that sometimes this describes me. I was glad the person the other night grabbed my attention. I not only learned some new things and gained some different perspectives, but also was reminded of learning from others in general. Now, can I remember that?
The kid admits he was born as a boy, but she identifies as a girl. In rare circumstances only, can elite women compete with men. Compare marathon times. What person would put a woman at offensive tackle vs some NFL defensive lineman? In an interview I heard, one guy said that if the UConn women's basketball team was put on the court with the UConn men's team, "the men might lose." Maybe so, but I doubt it, really doubt it.
So, what happens when guys not good enough to make the NBA or the PGA Tour declare they "identify as women" and proceed to the WNBA and LPGA? Is that far behind? Will those doo-gooders (and I do mean doo) support the lost opportunities (think money!) for women?
I'm not taking an anti-transgender position. In fact, I just finished a book about transgenders. I do think, though, that someone with a male body, regardless of how he/she identifies, has a distinct advantage over most athletes with female bodies. Consider strength, speed, etc.
I wonder about the whole thing. How did the winner (and the transgender who finished second) really feel about the victory? He/She appeared excited, but, deep down? How did the girls (and their parents and coaches) feel about this, losing to someone with male physical abilities? What about the boys'/girls' parents? For that matter, how does this differ from the doping, esp the Soviet and Eastern European, scandals of the Olympics, the taking of male hormones by women athletes? The state high school officials claim their hands were tied, that they had to permit the competition due to state law. If, say, transgenders can use either rest room, they can compete in either meet, boys or girls.
Perhaps some boys, honestly or otherwise, should claim to be transgender and insist on competing in girls' meets/events.
If a person biologically a male, claims to be/identifies as a female, can he/she get, say, a college scholarship for the women's basketball team? Would a coach even consider it?
I don't know anything of the NoKo deal. But I find it very entertaining that those who criticized Obama over Iran are now lauding Trump over North Korea. And, vice versa, those supporters of Obama's deal are critical of Trump. That was probably predictable.
Some Hollywood-type (I, as usual, never heard of the guy.) made some comments about the Supremes' decision in the Colorado baker case. The baker, citing his religious beliefs, refused to bake a cake for a gay wedding--or something like that. The baker was sued and lost in the state courts, but the Supremes overturned the state ruling. (I hope I have that right. It's so hard to keep things straight nowadays!) This Hollywood-type, who is smarter than you and I, disagreed and made some public comments that the baker should have to bake the cake when a gay wedding is held. OK, I don't have a problem with this, if...... If this Hollywood-type agrees to make a commercial touting the bakery and the baker's religious beliefs. Oh, the Hollywood-type doesn't agree with the baker, but thinks the baker should have to go against his beliefs. So, then turn-around is fair play. If the baker can be forced to go against his beliefs by others, so should the Hollywood-type in making the ad extolling the baker's religious beliefs. Maybe not......
I listened intently the other day. The person was saying something I didn't know; I realized I could learn from her. So, I tried to drink in as much as I could. So, then, why do so many people refuse to recognize others might, just might, know more than they do? Why are they so reluctant, if not downright stubborn, when it comes to listening, to at least considering others' suggestions? Just because somebody played little league and watches games on the boob tube does not at all mean that person really knows baseball. I think far too many don't realize that. And it goes beyond baseball and other sports. I am willing to concede, too, that sometimes this describes me. I was glad the person the other night grabbed my attention. I not only learned some new things and gained some different perspectives, but also was reminded of learning from others in general. Now, can I remember that?
Tuesday, June 5, 2018
Hypocrisy, "Worth it," etc.
Following up on my "celebrity" post from a few weeks ago, I had to laugh at an e-mail/newsletter I received. The title of an article in it was "57 Celebrities Who Have Run Marathons." On a lark I looked through it, chuckling when I recognized about a dozen of the names, that's all. "Celebrities?" I guess not in my book.
I normally don't follow much in the way of the sports world. But one recent story intrigued me. Apparently the University of Michigan basketball coach is being considered for and is considering the Detroit Pistons coaching position. Hmmm..... I wonder why. There has been speculation, a number of theories. One is that he's positioning for more money from U of M. Maybe. He's getting about $4 million now. To me, how much more does one need? That's more than most of us will earn in our entire lifetimes, let alone one year. Maybe the lure of double that annually is strong. Another is that he might be eager to challenge himself on the highest level, the NBA. Hmmm. I wonder. Is the NBA "the highest level?" Surely it is pay-wise. But who is to say it's the epitome of coaching levels? Is coaching a Division I college team somehow "higher" than one in Division II or III? Is, for instance, teaching at the high school or even college level something "higher" than say, teaching kindergarten or first grade? I don't think so in either case. Besides, and this might well just be me and my value and views, I can't imagine a better coaching job than at a small Division III school. Maybe it's ego, the allure of bigger bucks, being on "the big or bigger stage" (celebrity?), etc. Still, I think it's a thoughtful issue.
I found myself acting hypocritically the other day. I guess I realized it at the time, but didn't change my behavior/plans. The specifics are not relevant and it was nothing major. It was not a question of good or bad, but more of better and not better. Nevertheless, I chose poorly.
It seems we are surrounded by hypocrisy today. I know people are not perfect; they make mistakes. And I also realize that it's not always easy to live completely principled lives all of the time or maybe even most of the time. Still, the hypocrisy hangs from the trees. I don't know if it's good that I recognize when I am a hypocrite. But it seems to me most folks don't--or don't care if they are.
I think those who tick me off the most are the ones who constantly or at least often call others "greedy" or "mean-spirited." Yet, it frequently, in fact as often as not, turns out these same name-callers spend tons of money--on lavish vacations that last for weeks, on expensive cars (often many of them, sometimes more cars than there are drivers in the household), golf/country club memberships, $40 and $50 bottles of wine for everyday dinner, etc. Yet in their own eyes, they aren't the greedy ones; it's always the other guys who are. I don't care how people spend their money; that's the key with me: it's their money! I have no business telling others how to spend their own earned money. And neither do these hypocrites, unless......
Unless they stop spending on these vacations, drop their country/golf club memberships, buy cars more in tune with what most folks buy, give up their pools that have decks with more square footage than my house, etc. (OK, they don't have to resort to Boone's Farm or Paisano, but how about good wines that cost half or less of what they now spend?) Again, I have no problem with how people spend their money; it's theirs. What irks me is those who live one way while preaching another message. They want to spend their own money how they want, but also want to tell others how to spend, too. I would be far less critical if they cut back on their own spending and donated more to charity or, ahem, voluntarily paid more in taxes.
And that leads to something else I came across recently, something I hear regularly. I think the first time I heard this was decades ago, maybe the L'Oreal television commercial that claimed, "...because you're worth it." Similarly, somebody last week said, "...because I deserve it." Well, maybe he/she does; maybe not. What makes people think they "deserve" something or are "worth it?" Now, if someone has worked toward a goal or an achievement, "deserve" and "worth" certainly are in the picture. But, just 'cuz? I don't think so, Tim. It reminds me of a tee shirt I saw on a kid maybe 30 or more years ago. It read, "I'm Somebody Because God Didn't Make No Junk." (Yes, I know......) I hope nobody believes that because there is a lot of "junk" out there among us.
In the same light, we can work hard, save, etc. so that we really "deserve" something. But that doesn't ensure we will be rewarded. That, of course, can be sad. But it can also be a situation where we can learn a few hard facts of life. And it can also be a time where we realize that the journey can be worth as much as the destination.
I normally don't follow much in the way of the sports world. But one recent story intrigued me. Apparently the University of Michigan basketball coach is being considered for and is considering the Detroit Pistons coaching position. Hmmm..... I wonder why. There has been speculation, a number of theories. One is that he's positioning for more money from U of M. Maybe. He's getting about $4 million now. To me, how much more does one need? That's more than most of us will earn in our entire lifetimes, let alone one year. Maybe the lure of double that annually is strong. Another is that he might be eager to challenge himself on the highest level, the NBA. Hmmm. I wonder. Is the NBA "the highest level?" Surely it is pay-wise. But who is to say it's the epitome of coaching levels? Is coaching a Division I college team somehow "higher" than one in Division II or III? Is, for instance, teaching at the high school or even college level something "higher" than say, teaching kindergarten or first grade? I don't think so in either case. Besides, and this might well just be me and my value and views, I can't imagine a better coaching job than at a small Division III school. Maybe it's ego, the allure of bigger bucks, being on "the big or bigger stage" (celebrity?), etc. Still, I think it's a thoughtful issue.
I found myself acting hypocritically the other day. I guess I realized it at the time, but didn't change my behavior/plans. The specifics are not relevant and it was nothing major. It was not a question of good or bad, but more of better and not better. Nevertheless, I chose poorly.
It seems we are surrounded by hypocrisy today. I know people are not perfect; they make mistakes. And I also realize that it's not always easy to live completely principled lives all of the time or maybe even most of the time. Still, the hypocrisy hangs from the trees. I don't know if it's good that I recognize when I am a hypocrite. But it seems to me most folks don't--or don't care if they are.
I think those who tick me off the most are the ones who constantly or at least often call others "greedy" or "mean-spirited." Yet, it frequently, in fact as often as not, turns out these same name-callers spend tons of money--on lavish vacations that last for weeks, on expensive cars (often many of them, sometimes more cars than there are drivers in the household), golf/country club memberships, $40 and $50 bottles of wine for everyday dinner, etc. Yet in their own eyes, they aren't the greedy ones; it's always the other guys who are. I don't care how people spend their money; that's the key with me: it's their money! I have no business telling others how to spend their own earned money. And neither do these hypocrites, unless......
Unless they stop spending on these vacations, drop their country/golf club memberships, buy cars more in tune with what most folks buy, give up their pools that have decks with more square footage than my house, etc. (OK, they don't have to resort to Boone's Farm or Paisano, but how about good wines that cost half or less of what they now spend?) Again, I have no problem with how people spend their money; it's theirs. What irks me is those who live one way while preaching another message. They want to spend their own money how they want, but also want to tell others how to spend, too. I would be far less critical if they cut back on their own spending and donated more to charity or, ahem, voluntarily paid more in taxes.
And that leads to something else I came across recently, something I hear regularly. I think the first time I heard this was decades ago, maybe the L'Oreal television commercial that claimed, "...because you're worth it." Similarly, somebody last week said, "...because I deserve it." Well, maybe he/she does; maybe not. What makes people think they "deserve" something or are "worth it?" Now, if someone has worked toward a goal or an achievement, "deserve" and "worth" certainly are in the picture. But, just 'cuz? I don't think so, Tim. It reminds me of a tee shirt I saw on a kid maybe 30 or more years ago. It read, "I'm Somebody Because God Didn't Make No Junk." (Yes, I know......) I hope nobody believes that because there is a lot of "junk" out there among us.
In the same light, we can work hard, save, etc. so that we really "deserve" something. But that doesn't ensure we will be rewarded. That, of course, can be sad. But it can also be a situation where we can learn a few hard facts of life. And it can also be a time where we realize that the journey can be worth as much as the destination.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
